What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310899 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5310899?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310899?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310899?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13276445-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310899 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5310899?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310899?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310899?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13276445-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

4 Ryburn Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5310899 — Mould & damp

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the applicants name and identifying details.
Nz Rent Limited As Agent For Ruiguang Wang Tina must pay [The tenant/s] $3,720.00 immediately, being compensation.

Reasons

This tenancy commenced on 24 February 2023 and concluded on 17 July 2025.
During the tenancy, multiple leaks occurred at the property. There were leaks in each of the first three months of the tenancy, followed by at least five further incidents throughout the tenancy. On one occasion the leak was described by the respondent as water pouring inside the property. On other occasions there were drips and steadier flows of water, including in one of the bedrooms above a bay window and in two other areas of the property.
I do not consider it necessary to set out the facts of each individual incident in detail. During the hearing I asked both parties about the reported leaks, and neither party disputed that these incidents occurred.
The divergence in the parties’ positions concerns how the landlord responded to the leaks.
The applicant tenant told me that the landlord took little meaningful action, and that while contractors were sometimes said to have been sent to the property, it did not appear that the work undertaken resolved the underlying issue. The tenant suggested that the landlord displayed apathy toward the ongoing problem.
The respondent, who is the property manager, provided evidence that they responded promptly to each report of leaking and arranged for contractors to attend the property to carry out repairs which they believed resolved the issue.
The respondent also told me that roof leaks are common, and referred to another property they manage where a new roof still experiences leaks, suggesting that such issues can require regular maintenance and repair.
The respondent explained that each time a leak was reported, she sent a contractor whom she trusted to carry out the repairs. She acknowledged that she did not personally investigate the cause of the leaks, instead relying on the contractor to complete the work properly. Evidence was provided showing that costs were incurred and that work had been undertaken. When asked about the nature of the repairs, she said that contractors would seal or fill the identified areas, and that on one occasion her colleague performed a hose test to identify leaks.
I accept that the landlord and the property manager were attempting to respond to the tenant’s reports and believed they were addressing the issue appropriately. I do not accept the tenant’s submission that the landlord took no meaningful action or that they did not take the issue seriously.
However, the landlord’s obligations extend beyond responding to individual repair requests.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act, the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. This obligation has two components: the landlord must first provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair, and must then maintain them in that condition throughout the tenancy.
By reviewing publicly available images of the property, including Google Maps imagery, it appears that the property is relatively old, including the roof, is visibly significantly deteriorated. The roof appears to be at least 40 years old, if not older.
Both parties accepted that repeated leaks occurred, sometimes monthly, in particular areas of the property.
The applicant argues that this situation interfered with her right to quiet enjoyment of the premises. The respondent says their obligation was simply to respond within a reasonable timeframe to repair issues as they arose.
Further to the agreed leaks the applicant submitted and the respondent accepted that the property had been freshly painted at the commencement of the tenancy. The applicant provided photographs taken at the conclusion of the tenancy showing watermarks and staining on walls and ceilings, indicating moisture penetration in the walls in addition to the leaks.
The respondent provided example photographs from another property to illustrate the type of damage they would expect if significant water damage had occurred. However, I place greater weight on the applicant’s photographs, as they show the actual condition of the premises at the end of this tenancy.
Given that the walls had been freshly painted at the start of the tenancy, the appearance of water staining and moisture marks suggests that water penetration had occurred during the tenancy.
The applicant also produced photographs of a couch that had become heavily affected by mould.
Taken together, this evidence indicates, on the balance of probabilities, that the property had underlying structural issues relating to moisture and roof leaks that required more substantial investigation and repair and that the landlords interventions were not appropriate.
While it may be correct that isolated roof leaks can occur, the evidence in this case shows persistent and repeated leaking over a prolonged period, including multiple incidents in the first three months of the tenancy.
In my view, those early incidents should have prompted the landlord to undertake a full assessment of the roof and underlying structure by a more qualified professional. Instead, the landlord continued to rely on piecemeal repairs by her trusted handyman without investigating what the underlying issue was. As a result, the tenant continued to experience repeated leaks and had to continually adjust how she lived in the property to manage the problem.
This situation engaged the tenant’s rights under section 38 of the Act, which provides that a tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment of the premises without unreasonable interference.
Section 38 reflects the common law covenant of quiet enjoyment. It recognises that some temporary inconvenience or disruption may occur, particularly where landlords undertake maintenance or repairs. In such circumstances the Tribunal must consider whether the level of interference was reasonable in all the circumstances, taking into account the frequency, duration, and degree of the disruption.
In this case, while the landlord was entitled to undertake repairs, the number of repair visits and the repeated recurrence of leaks over a period of more than two years exceeded what a tenant could reasonably be expected to tolerate. Had the landlord properly investigated, more extensive repairs could have been conducted earlier to avoid the constant recurrence of the issue or they may have decided to terminate if such repairs were not economical.
I therefore find that the landlord breached section 45(1)(b) by both failing in the first instance to provide the property in an adequate state of repair and then failed to adequately maintain the premises. This failure resulted in a breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment under section 38.
However, the applicant also sought compensation for a number of specific costs, including: a) cleaning and disposal of couches b) replacement couches c) a new television d) the cost of a dehumidifier e) electricity costs f) replacement towels g) loss of rent.
The applicant bears the burden of proving causation and loss on the balance of probabilities. In this case, I am not satisfied that the applicant has established a sufficient causal link between the landlord’s breaches and these claimed costs, or that the amounts claimed were reasonably incurred as a result of the leaking issues. These claims are therefore dismissed.
I also find that the landlord’s breach of sections 38 and 45 was not intentional. The evidence shows that the landlord genuinely believed the issue was being addressed through contractors, even though those efforts ultimately proved inadequate.
Because the breach was not intentional, the threshold for consideration of exemplary damages cannot be met.
However, I accept that the tenant experienced ongoing and unreasonable disruption to their quiet enjoyment of the premises throughout the tenancy due to the landlord’s failure to adequately address the underlying structural issues that seem apparent in this property on the balance of probabilities.
I therefore consider it appropriate to award general compensation for loss of quiet enjoyment.
I assess that compensation at $30.00 per week for the duration of the tenancy is appropriate. In reaching this figure, I have taken into account that there were periods during the tenancy where no leaks were reported as well as some rent reduction that was given during the tenancy, as well as the landlord’s attempts, albeit unsuccessful, to remedy the issue.
The tenancy lasted 124 weeks. $30 × 124 weeks = $3,720
Accordingly, $3,720 is awarded to the applicant in compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment.
The applicant provided evidence that one previous tenant was removed from the agreement in the first few months of the tenancy and they have been removed from the application.
The applicants request for suppression is granted.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the applicants name and identifying details.
Nz Rent Limited As Agent For Ruiguang Wang Tina must pay [The tenant/s] $3,720.00 immediately, being compensation.

Reasons

This tenancy commenced on 24 February 2023 and concluded on 17 July 2025.
During the tenancy, multiple leaks occurred at the property. There were leaks in each of the first three months of the tenancy, followed by at least five further incidents throughout the tenancy. On one occasion the leak was described by the respondent as water pouring inside the property. On other occasions there were drips and steadier flows of water, including in one of the bedrooms above a bay window and in two other areas of the property.
I do not consider it necessary to set out the facts of each individual incident in detail. During the hearing I asked both parties about the reported leaks, and neither party disputed that these incidents occurred.
The divergence in the parties’ positions concerns how the landlord responded to the leaks.
The applicant tenant told me that the landlord took little meaningful action, and that while contractors were sometimes said to have been sent to the property, it did not appear that the work undertaken resolved the underlying issue. The tenant suggested that the landlord displayed apathy toward the ongoing problem.
The respondent, who is the property manager, provided evidence that they responded promptly to each report of leaking and arranged for contractors to attend the property to carry out repairs which they believed resolved the issue.
The respondent also told me that roof leaks are common, and referred to another property they manage where a new roof still experiences leaks, suggesting that such issues can require regular maintenance and repair.
The respondent explained that each time a leak was reported, she sent a contractor whom she trusted to carry out the repairs. She acknowledged that she did not personally investigate the cause of the leaks, instead relying on the contractor to complete the work properly. Evidence was provided showing that costs were incurred and that work had been undertaken. When asked about the nature of the repairs, she said that contractors would seal or fill the identified areas, and that on one occasion her colleague performed a hose test to identify leaks.
I accept that the landlord and the property manager were attempting to respond to the tenant’s reports and believed they were addressing the issue appropriately. I do not accept the tenant’s submission that the landlord took no meaningful action or that they did not take the issue seriously.
However, the landlord’s obligations extend beyond responding to individual repair requests.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act, the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. This obligation has two components: the landlord must first provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair, and must then maintain them in that condition throughout the tenancy.
By reviewing publicly available images of the property, including Google Maps imagery, it appears that the property is relatively old, including the roof, is visibly significantly deteriorated. The roof appears to be at least 40 years old, if not older.
Both parties accepted that repeated leaks occurred, sometimes monthly, in particular areas of the property.
The applicant argues that this situation interfered with her right to quiet enjoyment of the premises. The respondent says their obligation was simply to respond within a reasonable timeframe to repair issues as they arose.
Further to the agreed leaks the applicant submitted and the respondent accepted that the property had been freshly painted at the commencement of the tenancy. The applicant provided photographs taken at the conclusion of the tenancy showing watermarks and staining on walls and ceilings, indicating moisture penetration in the walls in addition to the leaks.
The respondent provided example photographs from another property to illustrate the type of damage they would expect if significant water damage had occurred. However, I place greater weight on the applicant’s photographs, as they show the actual condition of the premises at the end of this tenancy.
Given that the walls had been freshly painted at the start of the tenancy, the appearance of water staining and moisture marks suggests that water penetration had occurred during the tenancy.
The applicant also produced photographs of a couch that had become heavily affected by mould.
Taken together, this evidence indicates, on the balance of probabilities, that the property had underlying structural issues relating to moisture and roof leaks that required more substantial investigation and repair and that the landlords interventions were not appropriate.
While it may be correct that isolated roof leaks can occur, the evidence in this case shows persistent and repeated leaking over a prolonged period, including multiple incidents in the first three months of the tenancy.
In my view, those early incidents should have prompted the landlord to undertake a full assessment of the roof and underlying structure by a more qualified professional. Instead, the landlord continued to rely on piecemeal repairs by her trusted handyman without investigating what the underlying issue was. As a result, the tenant continued to experience repeated leaks and had to continually adjust how she lived in the property to manage the problem.
This situation engaged the tenant’s rights under section 38 of the Act, which provides that a tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment of the premises without unreasonable interference.
Section 38 reflects the common law covenant of quiet enjoyment. It recognises that some temporary inconvenience or disruption may occur, particularly where landlords undertake maintenance or repairs. In such circumstances the Tribunal must consider whether the level of interference was reasonable in all the circumstances, taking into account the frequency, duration, and degree of the disruption.
In this case, while the landlord was entitled to undertake repairs, the number of repair visits and the repeated recurrence of leaks over a period of more than two years exceeded what a tenant could reasonably be expected to tolerate. Had the landlord properly investigated, more extensive repairs could have been conducted earlier to avoid the constant recurrence of the issue or they may have decided to terminate if such repairs were not economical.
I therefore find that the landlord breached section 45(1)(b) by both failing in the first instance to provide the property in an adequate state of repair and then failed to adequately maintain the premises. This failure resulted in a breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment under section 38.
However, the applicant also sought compensation for a number of specific costs, including: a) cleaning and disposal of couches b) replacement couches c) a new television d) the cost of a dehumidifier e) electricity costs f) replacement towels g) loss of rent.
The applicant bears the burden of proving causation and loss on the balance of probabilities. In this case, I am not satisfied that the applicant has established a sufficient causal link between the landlord’s breaches and these claimed costs, or that the amounts claimed were reasonably incurred as a result of the leaking issues. These claims are therefore dismissed.
I also find that the landlord’s breach of sections 38 and 45 was not intentional. The evidence shows that the landlord genuinely believed the issue was being addressed through contractors, even though those efforts ultimately proved inadequate.
Because the breach was not intentional, the threshold for consideration of exemplary damages cannot be met.
However, I accept that the tenant experienced ongoing and unreasonable disruption to their quiet enjoyment of the premises throughout the tenancy due to the landlord’s failure to adequately address the underlying structural issues that seem apparent in this property on the balance of probabilities.
I therefore consider it appropriate to award general compensation for loss of quiet enjoyment.
I assess that compensation at $30.00 per week for the duration of the tenancy is appropriate. In reaching this figure, I have taken into account that there were periods during the tenancy where no leaks were reported as well as some rent reduction that was given during the tenancy, as well as the landlord’s attempts, albeit unsuccessful, to remedy the issue.
The tenancy lasted 124 weeks. $30 × 124 weeks = $3,720
Accordingly, $3,720 is awarded to the applicant in compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment.
The applicant provided evidence that one previous tenant was removed from the agreement in the first few months of the tenancy and they have been removed from the application.
The applicants request for suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310899 — Mould & damp at 4 Ryburn Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310899 — Mould & damp at 4 Ryburn Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions